I was reverse parking (rear to curb) when a cyclist travelling down the hill (the same way i was going) crashed into my car when i was backing into the spot. i did not see them as i was looking in the rear vision mirror. should they have givin my to me????

Yeah, I thought the rule was that the parker has to give way to traffic in the main road as they are parking (NSW). Having said that, so many rules have changed since I got my license I probably don't know half of them.

There may be some legal argument depending on where and how they hit you.

Depends on a bunch of things. However when you are reversing is pretty much the only instance where you can be hit square up the back and actually be at fault. Probably comes down to did you hit him or he you.

having been a stupid dipstick who hit someone when they lurched forward to block me from reverse parking, the ossifer in the poleece stayshun ex plained me that the re-verseing veehickle is allways at fawlt.

trailgumby wrote:having been a stupid dipstick who hit someone when they lurched forward to block me from reverse parking, the ossifer in the poleece stayshun ex plained me that the re-verseing veehickle is allways at fawlt.

Come on team, give the OP a break. F7 aside, methinks it's a fair question. Not to mention the fact that a smokeboxer is actually willing to put his hand up and ask velonauts for advice. Better by far than bragging about it down t'pub.

My knowledge of the laws pertaining to this incident and the paucity of information makes it an impossible call so far.

...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.London Boy 29/12/2011

trailgumby wrote:having been a stupid dipstick who hit someone when they lurched forward to block me from reverse parking, the ossifer in the poleece stayshun ex plained me that the re-verseing veehickle is allways at fawlt.

No exceptions. 3 points for neg driving.

The officer is not correct. There is no such law.

The law exists. What the officer is repeating is a typical police interpretation - ie if you drive into someone who the police believe is stationary, you risk them assessing your driving as negligent. If you disagree you can have the matter heard at court.

On the one hand, the driver may have just stopped to reverse into a parking spot and the cyclist hit him from behind. That may go the way of the cyclist.

Lets also assume for a second that the vehicle indicated, stopped, started to reverse into the parking spot, and the cyclist hit him. To me that would be an altogether different situation.

Having said that, I was always under the impression that if a vehicle is hit from behind, it is generally the vehicle BEHIND that is at fault.

cheersGlenn

-----------"Pain is temporary. It may last a minute, or an hour, or a day, or a year, but eventually it will subside and something else will take its place. If I quit, however, it lasts forever" Lance Armstrong

Mulger bill wrote:Come on team, give the OP a break. F7 aside, methinks it's a fair question. Not to mention the fact that a smokeboxer is actually willing to put his hand up and ask velonauts for advice. Better by far than bragging about it down t'pub.

My knowledge of the laws pertaining to this incident and the paucity of information makes it an impossible call so far.

+1 to all of this.

I think the only advice worth anything is to talk to someone about the law - police is a good start, though independent legal advice may be better in this case.

There's simply not enough info on the incident to make a call. And even if there was, an anonymous 'velonaut' (like that term ) on teh interwebs would not be my source of truth in such a case...

find_bruce wrote:You are asking a bunch of cyclists about an incident where you crashed into a cyclist, so it is possible the answers you get may be less than objective.

bruce, i disagree with your point....the cyclist has crashed into him.

it always annoys me when i read the following, " a motorcyclist crashed into a car when the car drove across yellow lines"...placing the blame on the motorcyclist when the car driver is at fault..

to me you are doing the same here....the car driver is reversing, the cyclist crests the hill then runs into him? I don't see that as the OP's fault....cyclist not maintaining proper distance or being able to break is my read on it.

find_bruce wrote:You are asking a bunch of cyclists about an incident where you crashed into a cyclist, so it is possible the answers you get may be less than objective.

csy75 wrote:it alwaysnnoys me when i read the following, " a motorcyclist crashed into a car when the car drove across yellow lines"...placing the blame on the motorcyclist when the car driver is at fault..

You make a valid point, I should have said "had a collission with" rather than "crashed into" - I was deliberately trying not to say who was at fault because there was not enough information, as others have more eloquently put it.

r2160 wrote:Having said that, I was always under the impression that if a vehicle is hit from behind, it is generally the vehicle BEHIND that is at fault.

You are correct, as long as you remeber the genrally bit. As Percrime said when you are reversing you can be hit square up the back and actually be at fault - see road rule 269 extracted above.

Ozkaban wrote:an anonymous 'velonaut' (like that term ) on teh interwebs would not be my source of truth

Amen to that Oz - these sort of threads should come with a disclaimer - "if you rely upon advice given anonymously on teh interwebs, we reserve our right to point & laugh"

I would think that the cyclist would be at fault, simply because hitting people in front of you needs to be a blanket decision unless you are found to have deliberately caused the accident with intent. Good luck proving the second situation.

It really seems that there needs to be a basic understanding of what is considered the default position, and work out the exceptions from there. Hitting from behind is a simple one, because you can't force road users in front to brake less if they need to stop. If you can't avoid them, you're too close or not paying attention. Pretty simple! It's the same as "give way to people already in the roundabout". It's presumed that you give way to the right, but sometimes a vehicle stalls inside the roundabout (or cyclist picks a big gear) and you can't just give carte blanche approval to poor sharing because a roundabout is NOT a straight road with stop signs blocking the other roads.

trailgumby wrote:having been a stupid dipstick who hit someone when they lurched forward to block me from reverse parking, the ossifer in the poleece stayshun ex plained me that the re-verseing veehickle is allways at fawlt.

No exceptions. 3 points for neg driving.

The officer is not correct. There is no such law.

The law exists. What the officer is repeating is a typical police interpretation - ie if you drive into someone who the police believe is stationary, you risk them assessing your driving as negligent. If you disagree you can have the matter heard at court.

well there is another interpretation which says if you run into the back of a vehicle you are always in the wrong.

The policeman said the reverser is always wrong. I don't agree. If that were the case, that means if I see somebody reversing, I can just ram into them and it is their fault. I don't see how that makes sense. Yes a reverser should give way but was the accident caused by the reverser not giving way? If the car had stayed still, would the collision have occurred?

Motorists hate cyclists and cyclists hate the motorists and the pedestrians hate the bikers and everybody hates the trucks.

diggler wrote:The policeman said the reverser is always wrong. I don't agree. If that were the case, that means if I see somebody reversing, I can just ram into them and it is their fault. I don't see how that makes sense. Yes a reverser should give way but was the accident caused by the reverser not giving way? If the car had stayed still, would the collision have occurred?

There are scenarios where more than one driver can be at fault or charged with a driving offence.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.